As default simplifications, assume: A normal distribution of ability A normal distribution of ambition It takes money to make money Then, some people of above average ability and skill will succeed in aquiring above average capital (land, cattle, gold, whatever). In succeeding generations, there is reversion to the mean - which means some of the children of the most successful are less ambitious and able, so they fall behind in the race to the top or fall back altogether. Some of the offspring of the average/below average people will have above average ambition and skill, but lack the headstart of accumulated capital. In static economies, the only chance to get into the top ranks is violence. In a dynamic economy, one can invest your efforts in a new sector not already dominated by existing wealth. So, one could conclude there is a built-in tendency to inequality. Not as a social organizing principle, but as the higher-level outcome of lower level attributes. In small-scale societies, particularly those constrained by low levels of natural resources, both material and social environment limit the ability to accummulate - inequality remains low. But what limits inequality at the top? One explanation is greed and shelfishness. Where the wealthy gain control of the political process, they have the ability to shift the costs of government including maintaining the police and army, onto the back of the middle and lower classes. Eventually the lower class no longer can or will support the wealthy, and you have revolt or conquest. Another is related - a disconnect from the environment. A group immediately dependent on the local environment gets quicker feedback on the quality of their decisions and has a high incentive to improve them. The wealty are less dependent, more distanced from the effects of bad decisions - with weaker feedback, decisions get worse. So in the same sense that there is a built-in tendency to inequality, one could argue that there are built in limits.

I have read all of the posts linked to this article and only yours makes an honest attempt to start with premises and then to reason from there. I am no scholar but find that while you make an OK start there is much not covered by your premises.

Particularly the question of the ability to shift the costs of 'externalities' upon others and how together with barriers to entry, cartels and just plain corruption the outcomes are skewed to favor the rich.

Beware those who will rewrite your thesis for you (myself included). Try not to give them too much to manipulate (independent variables versus dependent variables, describe interrelations and provide examples). Less can be more in expository writing. (I know that I also implored you to write more. Be very selective and anticipate counter-factual arguments.)

I enjoyed reading your effort. You attempted to track a process through time which is both very difficult and essential to explaining the phenomenon in question. Others failed to even attempt to acknowledge the task properly.

Please use paragraphs to make reading your post easier.